Talk:Requests for Comment/Allow exception to LP ban

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposal 2[edit source]

The more I think about it, the more I am becoming increasingly certain that Proposal 2 is invalid. Not only would it change the original decision, but beyond that technically I personally am not even banned. Also note that LP is not permanently banned, she is indefinitely locked. The only reason why I am going through this procedure is becasue I was required to due to my account being locked. If my account wasn't locked, technically I would not have to have an RFC to get "unbanned" since I wasn't banned in the first place. Seriously, Proposal 2 needs to be re-worded or removed completely. The strong support votes by two users @LulzKiller: and @Robkelk: are concerning me that they are not reading the comments left by @John:. This is not good and needs attention. Amanda (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A proposal can't really be reworded after it was already voted on. I propose removing proposal 2 and making a proposal 5 with the same idea, for whoever supported proposal 2. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done as proposed above. Amanda (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Amanda: Maybe it was my fault when I worded it but by "propose" I meant a steward should take care of it. Closing a proposal should not be done by users without asking a steward before. As a general comment on Miraheze, please try to refrain taking actions that you're unsure of without asking a steward/local admin/etc. before doing so. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 7[edit source]

@Rsterbal: and others. I propose that stewards close proposal 7 as it does not affect Miraheze, it is just a suggestion made for the user not something that will actually be acted on. It could be integrated in another proposal but by itself it has no purpose. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Agreed This is worse than proposal 2. Amanda (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not that it's worse, we can't close/remove a proposal because someone doesn't like it. I want it to be removed because it isn't a concrete proposal, and Miraheze cannot act on it in any way. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 11:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Why doesn't Amanda want to look at alternatives? She needs to be honest about her future and if she doesn't fit in, start making plans. We as a community should consider helping her find a solution for her, whether it involve self hosting or using another alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsterbal (talkcontribs)
Yes, the community should consider helping but it is unrelated to the topic of this RfC which is "Allow exception to LP ban" so that's why I don't see how this fits in as a proposal. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Phabricator[edit source]

@Southparkfan: Per the closure of the RFC, I request that this Phabricator account be re-enabled. Amanda (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Account has been enabled. Southparkfan (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)